Forecasting and defining greatness is the second-most rewarding aspect of a sportswriter's lot. It is also our foremost challenge, riddled with risk. So regularly do contenders avail themselves, and almost as often undo themselves, there is every chance of looking extremely foolish/stupid/asinine, even within hours of sticking one's neck out. As when the owner of these very fingers predicted that Mark Ilott might be every bit as good as Wasim Akram.

Resisting the urge to wax rhapsodic about recent sporting events has nonetheless proved impossible. While there are many in these parts who will assure you that the London Olympics was the most unforgettable sporting experience of their lives, I have no expectations at all, as a true if unblinkered Brit and hardened Olympiphobe, that I will ever experience again such a concentrated passage of imperishable sporting drama and competitive artistry as the one that has left me spellbound these post-Games weeks.

Admittedly part of the pleasure has been unabashedly parochial - Andy Murray's courtly triumphs at the US Open, followed by that near-miraculous fightback by Europe's Ryder Cup chippers and putters. Still, the neutral in me has also had a whale of a time: a last-ball finish to the CB40 final; a riveting World Twenty20 capped by a rollicking rollercoaster of a climax, fittingly won by a free-form jazzy Caribbean combo; a succession of Major League Baseball playoffs that have ripped the breath away and refused to hand it back, regardless of the attendant cost to cardiac efficiency. Throw in Yuvraj Singh's double-century on his first-class comeback after beating cancer and it is sorely tempting to suggest that Him Upstairs is an Olympiphobe too.

Yet the most enduring memory left by the autumn of 2012, sadly, will almost certainly be the official vilification of a hero, namely another cancer-trouncer, Lance Armstrong, leader, according to last week's statement by the US Anti-Doping Agency, of "the most sophisticated, professionalised and successful doping programme that sport has ever seen". It remains to be seen whether race organisers ever seek to reclaim (let alone redistribute) his prize money, yet while the cyclist's punishments - to date at least - may not have been entirely commensurate with his considerable sins, stripping him of those seven Tour de France crowns strikes me as entirely just.

Cheating is as old as competition itself, but performance-enhancing, as a contemporary cause célèbre, poses unique problems. What punishment is adequate? What is the most effective sanction, the best deterrent? As with athletics, cycling now routinely rewrites its records and honours boards, which admirably serves the dual function of penalising the fake while rewarding the genuine, however belatedly. Even then, one could argue, justice can never be done. Silver medallists and runners-up are now crowned winners retrospectively, yet miss out on all the benefits derived by the original champion, tangible and spiritual. Victory after the fact can never feel remotely as good as glory on the day. Nor can pockets ever be properly compensated.

Cricket is blessed indeed that PEDs play such a minor role - so far as we know. On the other hand, it does have a long and profoundly un-rich history of another, more criminal brand of deception: match-fixing, the supreme act of sporting fraudulence and one not significantly mitigated when "spot" replaces "match". Suspensions and lifetime bans have been an imperfect answer, but since the threat of imprisonment (and worse) has failed to help governments the world over win the so-called "war on drugs", should we be surprised? At a time when umpires are being lured into this treacherous web and second chances are granted to those for whom there can never be true redemption, is there a case to be made for a more ruthless approach?

As things stand, we still await the first civil lawsuit against a player for deceiving the paying public, though it may not be long before some disgruntled punter, deprived of a fair chance to beat the bookies, pursues just such a course. In the meantime, the Armstrong Solution is nothing if not compelling.

The difficulty in this case lies less with intent than outcome. Whereas Armstrong was apparently prepared to do pretty much anything in his power to cross the line first, those who bring cricket into disrepute are usually those who will do anything to finish second. Or, at the very least, cannot be relied upon to prioritise collective success from first over to last.

Would Mohammad Azharuddin or Salim Malik have sold their souls for such an unholy mess of potage had they known that every run they scored would be erased? Would Mohammad Asif have done so had each and every wicket been at stake? Would H***** C***** or Salman Butt have pre-empted Armstrong's bullying tactics, strong-arming team-mates into their nefarious world, had they known their records, as player and captain, would be expunged? Given the number of players I have met who can rattle off their average, strike rate, economy rate or no-ball frequency without a millisecond's hesitation, who see themselves as being defined by their "stats", maybe not.

The nearest comparison, of course, lies with the most infamous episode in the long and lustre-free history of sporting scriptwriting - the 1919 World Series, wherein eight Chicago White Sox players accepted bribes to lay down against the Cincinnati Reds. All eight were banned sine die, albeit amid deeply unsatisfactory circumstances, but while their career records remain intact, preserved and pickled in aspic and ink, inconsistency persists.

As the most public face of the fix, "Shoeless" Joe Jackson suffered most, and continues to do so more than six decades after his death. As a candidate for the Baseball Hall of Fame - his lifetime batting average has been bettered by just two others - he continues to be rejected, even though those pleading forgiveness include Jimmy Carter, the erstwhile US president. Similarly, while the sullied feats of Pete Rose, a gambling addict shut out for a string of betting offences, including wagering against a team he was managing, remain all present and correct, unmoved and exalted, he is still routinely scorned by the journalists entrusted with deciding who enters the Hall of Fame.

Whereas Lance Armstrong was apparently prepared to do pretty much anything in his power to cross the line first, those who bring cricket into disrepute are usually those who will do anything to finish second

Admirable as it is, the ICC's strictly virtual Hall of Fame (if there is an actual "hall", the hits I gleaned after googling images for "ICC Hall of Fame" kept it a trade secret) has yet to penetrate public consciousness to anything like the same degree as its Cooperstown counterpart. It probably never will, such is the veneration Americans accord their sporting heroes. Even last week, in Armstrong's native Texas, while the rest of country was expressing its anger at the downfall of a blue-collar poster boy, and calling someone "a Lance" was flourishing as a term of abuse, it was still possible to hear a businessman express pride in having raised $67,000 to take part in a "Ride with Lance" charity event with "one of the greatest athletes ever".

Indeed, judging by the fact that cricket's Hall of Fame numbers that notorious law-bender WG Grace, exclusion from it might not be deemed a hardship. So that leaves the stats. In the wake of revelations about the 2000 Centurion Test, Sir Richard Hadlee advocated that players found guilty of match-fixing should be removed from Wisden. Resistance was stern.

"Where do you stop? Where do you start?" wondered Graeme Wright, then newly re-enthroned as editor of the Almanack. As we spoke, he was checking the scorecards from a South Africa-India one-day series, at least three of whose matches remain marred, even now, by liberal doses of suspicion. "Salim Malik is in the list of Five Cricketers of the Year. Do we take him out? If we take his scores out, where does that leave all those matches he played? Do you take runs away from teams, wickets away from bowlers? It's impossible. It's the WG factor. People said he replaced the bails when he was bowled and blithely carried on, but his record has never been altered. And I've never been a revisionist. Besides, there's no definitive list of offenders. It's all so subjective."

Wright's objections were grounded firmly in logic, but 12 years on, with the disease far from cured, a dependable antidote far from view, and ever more subtle means of underperforming coming to light, reassessment beckons. Since the Wisden records section omits any mention of the context of C*****'s numbers, and that England's "victory" in that Centurion Test was commemorated by Sky Sports during the summer whenever the highest fourth-innings chases against South Africa were listed on screen, another deterrent is overdue.

Wright was right: it would be the height of ludicrousness to rewrite scorecards or team records. There is, though, another path open to Lawrence Booth, the current Wisden editor, however unorthodox.

In the "Births and Deaths of Test Cricketers" section, why not insert an asterisk in the entries for proven offenders, followed by a footnote - something succinct, unequivocal and suitably damning? How about "Fraud"? Or "Liar"? Or better yet, "Cheat"? Keep the syllables to a minimum. Much as the only thing we hacks like better than hailing greatness is venting our self-righteous spleen, there really is little point in wasting words on villains.

Rob Steen is a sportswriter and senior lecturer in sports journalism at the University of Brighton

I agree with the intent of the proposal but feel it should be factual, i.e player x guilt of using PE drugs and banned from playing international cricket for x years - rather than subjective statement like 'cheat'. As if we use value judgements where do we stop. player D B****** - 'bloody great bat but antisemite involed in doggy financial practices'.

A thought provoking article and discussion. Interestingly the record books already fail to acknowledge stats of a number of players - those engaged in world series cricket in the 70s. They played 16 super tests against arguably the best players of the time, and yet if those stats were recognised Lilliee would have over 400 test wickets, Viv Richards an extra 1200 test runs, Greg Chappell another 1400 runs etc. And its not the case that these stats aren't recognised because the players invovled took performance enhancing drugs, threw matches, took bribes from bookies etc.

dummy4fb
on October 18, 2012, 20:01 GMT

I quite like the idea of putting some sort of mark against a player's name, although an asterisk can sometimes be used to indicate "Not out". How about using "$" instead, as it would seem to be more appropriate?

tenfan
on October 18, 2012, 9:31 GMT

@Vindaliew and Raja Shazad Suleman, Thats the way Rob is saying the name is bad word considering the deeds of the person and is treated like a bad word here

Cricket_theBestGame
on October 18, 2012, 1:52 GMT

interesting thought. what about those who come back after punishment like Gibs, Ajay Jadeja, Marlone samulas ( Shane Warne, Mark Waugh (both paid fines though not banned)??

its sufficient to put an * next the name for the period the player was found guilty of match breaking!

Dashgar
on October 18, 2012, 1:06 GMT

I really don't think the punishment fits the crime to wipe a player from the record books for spot fixing. Or even to permanently tarnish their name. There are some players it seems easy to make monsters of but remember that if that asterisk goes next to Salman Butt it also must go next to Marlon Samuels, everyones favourite man of the World T20. It seems unfair on a man who has done his time and come back to right the wrongs he did. There needs to be a chance at redemption.

arifzakaria811gmail.com
on October 17, 2012, 12:23 GMT

@ Nouman Shoukat : ICC had to step in after it had observed for past decade how the ban /unban and retire/unretire system was exploited by PCB to conveniently remove bans when needed for specidic players. One can bet ones house that if mohd amir /Asif bans were left to PCB , they would be representing Pakistan within years time. That is why ICC had no option but to put ban themselves. As for criminal proceeedings it was law of defrauding bookies that got them in. Look at it this way , if an employee is caught stealing money in XYZ company, the XYZ company will fire him (i1st punishment) and hand him to police who will put criminal record/jail (2n punishment).

Vindaliew
on October 17, 2012, 11:26 GMT

Why is "Hansie Cronje" italised in this article, while the others are not? Is it something to do with my browser settings?

dummy4fb
on October 17, 2012, 11:06 GMT

Why is Hansie Cronje's name been marked as H***** C****.

I though the whole article was about visibility and clarity of seeing tainted names in public.

Seems strange, anyway best possible solution is from comment made by, Unnikrishnan Bhaskarakurup. This could at a stroke sort all the previous miscreants.

dummy4fb
on October 17, 2012, 10:28 GMT

Actually it's a stupid idea , infect I think only one organization should give punishment to match fixer. Not that ICC put bans and then civil courts as well put them behind bars. It's like getting punished twice for one mistake or sin whatever. I think it's unfair.

dummy4fb
on October 17, 2012, 10:21 GMT

@Rob , very interesting Article , in the end what i want to say , we as cricket fans are deeply hurt and nobody can pay for that

natherine
on October 18, 2012, 22:12 GMT

I agree with the intent of the proposal but feel it should be factual, i.e player x guilt of using PE drugs and banned from playing international cricket for x years - rather than subjective statement like 'cheat'. As if we use value judgements where do we stop. player D B****** - 'bloody great bat but antisemite involed in doggy financial practices'.

A thought provoking article and discussion. Interestingly the record books already fail to acknowledge stats of a number of players - those engaged in world series cricket in the 70s. They played 16 super tests against arguably the best players of the time, and yet if those stats were recognised Lilliee would have over 400 test wickets, Viv Richards an extra 1200 test runs, Greg Chappell another 1400 runs etc. And its not the case that these stats aren't recognised because the players invovled took performance enhancing drugs, threw matches, took bribes from bookies etc.

dummy4fb
on October 18, 2012, 20:01 GMT

I quite like the idea of putting some sort of mark against a player's name, although an asterisk can sometimes be used to indicate "Not out". How about using "$" instead, as it would seem to be more appropriate?

tenfan
on October 18, 2012, 9:31 GMT

@Vindaliew and Raja Shazad Suleman, Thats the way Rob is saying the name is bad word considering the deeds of the person and is treated like a bad word here

Cricket_theBestGame
on October 18, 2012, 1:52 GMT

interesting thought. what about those who come back after punishment like Gibs, Ajay Jadeja, Marlone samulas ( Shane Warne, Mark Waugh (both paid fines though not banned)??

its sufficient to put an * next the name for the period the player was found guilty of match breaking!

Dashgar
on October 18, 2012, 1:06 GMT

I really don't think the punishment fits the crime to wipe a player from the record books for spot fixing. Or even to permanently tarnish their name. There are some players it seems easy to make monsters of but remember that if that asterisk goes next to Salman Butt it also must go next to Marlon Samuels, everyones favourite man of the World T20. It seems unfair on a man who has done his time and come back to right the wrongs he did. There needs to be a chance at redemption.

arifzakaria811gmail.com
on October 17, 2012, 12:23 GMT

@ Nouman Shoukat : ICC had to step in after it had observed for past decade how the ban /unban and retire/unretire system was exploited by PCB to conveniently remove bans when needed for specidic players. One can bet ones house that if mohd amir /Asif bans were left to PCB , they would be representing Pakistan within years time. That is why ICC had no option but to put ban themselves. As for criminal proceeedings it was law of defrauding bookies that got them in. Look at it this way , if an employee is caught stealing money in XYZ company, the XYZ company will fire him (i1st punishment) and hand him to police who will put criminal record/jail (2n punishment).

Vindaliew
on October 17, 2012, 11:26 GMT

Why is "Hansie Cronje" italised in this article, while the others are not? Is it something to do with my browser settings?

dummy4fb
on October 17, 2012, 11:06 GMT

Why is Hansie Cronje's name been marked as H***** C****.

I though the whole article was about visibility and clarity of seeing tainted names in public.

Seems strange, anyway best possible solution is from comment made by, Unnikrishnan Bhaskarakurup. This could at a stroke sort all the previous miscreants.

dummy4fb
on October 17, 2012, 10:28 GMT

Actually it's a stupid idea , infect I think only one organization should give punishment to match fixer. Not that ICC put bans and then civil courts as well put them behind bars. It's like getting punished twice for one mistake or sin whatever. I think it's unfair.

dummy4fb
on October 17, 2012, 10:21 GMT

@Rob , very interesting Article , in the end what i want to say , we as cricket fans are deeply hurt and nobody can pay for that

dummy4fb
on October 17, 2012, 10:17 GMT

While it's easy enough to replace the names of any proven cheats with *** in any scorecard and exclude them from player records, what if the cheating is only proven after the next Wisden (and other publications) are printed!? Sometimes a lengthy court case is going to be required, but until it's proven they shouldn't have their named expunged - innocent until proven guilty. Sure they can print a second edition, but there will still be thousands (if not millions) of first editions out there.

I still think hitting their wallets will hurt more - after all, that's the main motivation.

Nutcutlet
on October 17, 2012, 8:50 GMT

I agree, Rob - an asterisk against a player's name in the Births & Deaths would be entirely appropriate: a discreet branding-in-print. The precise details connected to any player so marked can then be found elsewhere by the curious scanner of such information. There remains the problem of matches infected by cheating /spot-fixing (the Centurion Test of 2000 being the classic example): I would suggest that the record of the scores & associated stats specific to that game are printed in italics - there for all time; instantly understood & disregarded as contaminated. Career records should, I think, also appear italicised & placed at the foot of any list, regardless of average, aggregate, etc.The existence of cheats has to be acknowledged (they've played their part in the game, however sinister) & their infamy can live for evermore - as a salutory reminder for enthusiasts that sporting disgrace is as available as its celebrated obverse.Young players shd be made aware of this convention.

dummy4fb
on October 17, 2012, 8:46 GMT

your question "Will we ever see a civil lawsuit in cricket for deceiving the paying public?" is correct but unrealsitic. we live in a world where the greedy bankers cause worldwide chaos by their greedy acts and yet they get bailed out.

Andrew73
on October 17, 2012, 5:31 GMT

Interesting article. Personally, I'm a fan of the last idea - leave the records intact, but with an asterisk attached for evermore (I have heard Centurion referred to as "the asterisk test" before). Cronje, Malik etc should never be forgotten. Rather than expunging them, let proven cheat's names continue to be tarnished whenever anyone sees their tainted records in future, so whenever the next young Asif or Butt thinks about crossing the line they might realise this is something that they can never take back, and think twice.

dummy4fb
on October 17, 2012, 4:10 GMT

Just a thought. Won't it be better to remove all the stats and include them in team extras... So that if someone sees an entry in score card like:
13th Man: 50 runs of 60 balls with 4 fours and 1 six
OR
Don : c Jack b 13th Man

So even i scores cards specifically mention who all were players including 12th man. but just mention the cheat as 13th Man. So, that seeing the entry 13th Man, future would know that these were the scores, but that a cheat whose name is not worth being mentioned had done it.. :) just a thought.. :)

No featured comments at the moment.

dummy4fb
on October 17, 2012, 4:10 GMT

Just a thought. Won't it be better to remove all the stats and include them in team extras... So that if someone sees an entry in score card like:
13th Man: 50 runs of 60 balls with 4 fours and 1 six
OR
Don : c Jack b 13th Man

So even i scores cards specifically mention who all were players including 12th man. but just mention the cheat as 13th Man. So, that seeing the entry 13th Man, future would know that these were the scores, but that a cheat whose name is not worth being mentioned had done it.. :) just a thought.. :)

Andrew73
on October 17, 2012, 5:31 GMT

Interesting article. Personally, I'm a fan of the last idea - leave the records intact, but with an asterisk attached for evermore (I have heard Centurion referred to as "the asterisk test" before). Cronje, Malik etc should never be forgotten. Rather than expunging them, let proven cheat's names continue to be tarnished whenever anyone sees their tainted records in future, so whenever the next young Asif or Butt thinks about crossing the line they might realise this is something that they can never take back, and think twice.

dummy4fb
on October 17, 2012, 8:46 GMT

your question "Will we ever see a civil lawsuit in cricket for deceiving the paying public?" is correct but unrealsitic. we live in a world where the greedy bankers cause worldwide chaos by their greedy acts and yet they get bailed out.

Nutcutlet
on October 17, 2012, 8:50 GMT

I agree, Rob - an asterisk against a player's name in the Births & Deaths would be entirely appropriate: a discreet branding-in-print. The precise details connected to any player so marked can then be found elsewhere by the curious scanner of such information. There remains the problem of matches infected by cheating /spot-fixing (the Centurion Test of 2000 being the classic example): I would suggest that the record of the scores & associated stats specific to that game are printed in italics - there for all time; instantly understood & disregarded as contaminated. Career records should, I think, also appear italicised & placed at the foot of any list, regardless of average, aggregate, etc.The existence of cheats has to be acknowledged (they've played their part in the game, however sinister) & their infamy can live for evermore - as a salutory reminder for enthusiasts that sporting disgrace is as available as its celebrated obverse.Young players shd be made aware of this convention.

dummy4fb
on October 17, 2012, 10:17 GMT

While it's easy enough to replace the names of any proven cheats with *** in any scorecard and exclude them from player records, what if the cheating is only proven after the next Wisden (and other publications) are printed!? Sometimes a lengthy court case is going to be required, but until it's proven they shouldn't have their named expunged - innocent until proven guilty. Sure they can print a second edition, but there will still be thousands (if not millions) of first editions out there.

I still think hitting their wallets will hurt more - after all, that's the main motivation.

dummy4fb
on October 17, 2012, 10:21 GMT

@Rob , very interesting Article , in the end what i want to say , we as cricket fans are deeply hurt and nobody can pay for that

dummy4fb
on October 17, 2012, 10:28 GMT

Actually it's a stupid idea , infect I think only one organization should give punishment to match fixer. Not that ICC put bans and then civil courts as well put them behind bars. It's like getting punished twice for one mistake or sin whatever. I think it's unfair.

dummy4fb
on October 17, 2012, 11:06 GMT

Why is Hansie Cronje's name been marked as H***** C****.

I though the whole article was about visibility and clarity of seeing tainted names in public.

Seems strange, anyway best possible solution is from comment made by, Unnikrishnan Bhaskarakurup. This could at a stroke sort all the previous miscreants.

Vindaliew
on October 17, 2012, 11:26 GMT

Why is "Hansie Cronje" italised in this article, while the others are not? Is it something to do with my browser settings?

arifzakaria811gmail.com
on October 17, 2012, 12:23 GMT

@ Nouman Shoukat : ICC had to step in after it had observed for past decade how the ban /unban and retire/unretire system was exploited by PCB to conveniently remove bans when needed for specidic players. One can bet ones house that if mohd amir /Asif bans were left to PCB , they would be representing Pakistan within years time. That is why ICC had no option but to put ban themselves. As for criminal proceeedings it was law of defrauding bookies that got them in. Look at it this way , if an employee is caught stealing money in XYZ company, the XYZ company will fire him (i1st punishment) and hand him to police who will put criminal record/jail (2n punishment).